Canadians Have The Right To Bear Arms Says Steven Blaney Minister Of Public Safety And Emergency Preparedness

What a joke the Conservative Party of Canada has become with Stephen Harper as its leader. They have proved to be out of step with what is a constitutional right in Canada and seem unable to grasp what is in their power to do and what is not when creating new laws, or changing old ones that will stand up when challenged in the Supreme Court of Canada. I think that the problem is that the Conservative Party of Canada’s back benchers and front back benchers, secretaries to ministers and ministers all the way up to and including Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the PMO, cannot distinguish the difference between what is a constitutional right in Canada and what is a privilege in Canada.

Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Steven Blaney, proved that he is no more knowledgeable in these matters than that of the rest of his fellow ministers in regards to what country’s legal system he is governing under and what the difference is between a right and a privilege where Canadian law is concerned. When Steven Blaney made the statement at a press conference he called, “Canadians have the right to bear arms that comes with a responsibility” and then repeated that gibberish during an interview on Power and Politics, I think he showed not only his contempt for the Supreme court of Canada and the bureaucrats in the RCMP as he called them, but also where the Conservative Party of Canada’s priorities lie when it comes to soliciting votes and keeping our law enforcement as free from unnecessary risks to their lives as possible and the people of Canada safe from maniacs with semi-automatic and automatic firearms.

Even when Steven Blaney Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness was reminded in an interview on television, by the host of Power and Politics that the Supreme Court of Canada has shot down this assertion of the right to bare arms as a Canadian right on numerous occasions over the years and consistently said that the right to own firearms is a privilege in Canada and not a right, Steven Blaney, repeatedly said that he and his party think that it is. The Conservative Party of Canada seems to be so desperate to secure a voting block fanatical enough to vote for it despite all of the scandals and screw ups that it is willing to put the safety of Canadians a risk, by playing politics with gun control. Do Canadian anglers and hunters need another gun in their arsenal so badly that it is worth risking the life of one law enforcement officer, or one citizen for? Does the Conservative Party of Canada need votes so badly that they are willing to risk the deaths of Canadian citizens to get them? I think with their latest announcement they have proved that they are willing to win even if it means the majority of Canadians safety is put at risk.

What legitimate range shooter, or hunter needs to have a Swiss Arms Classic semi-automatic riffle in their possession to hunt deer, moose, or bear? The only purpose to practice with that weapon is to be able to when the time and situation is right to kill another human being. One would think that after the attempted assassination of Pauline Marois, the murder of RCMP officers in Moncton and remembering The École Polytechnique Massacre of 1989 that Steven Blaney Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, would be trying to get these types of firearms off the street and out of the hands of all Canadians and yet this is not the case. Despite the decision of the RCMP after a year-long study to ban the ownership of the Swiss Arms Classic Green semi-automatic rifles, Steven Blaney Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Conservative government of Canada have decided to ignore the RCMP and is granting a two-year amnesty to owners of Swiss Arms Classic Green semi-automatic rifles. This in my opinion is putting all law enforcement officers at a greater risk of being killed by lunatics without a criminal record who can legally purchase semi-automatic weapons of the nature shown above now. This is yet another purely political move to keep the vote of gun lobbyist. These lobbyists have accused the Conservative Party of Canada of betraying them once they helped get them elected in the last election and have been threatening to not vote for them in the next election if they did not start giving them what they want. Does the Conservative Party of Canada also believe that along with the right to bear arms that Canadians have the right to use those guns to rid themselves of an unjust, corrupt, oppressive government that they feel no longer represents the people, as the gun lobbyist believe in the USA believe is one of the root purposes of their right to bear arms?

With the Supreme Court saying that Canadians do not have a right to bear arms in Canada and the RCMP after doing a year-long study on the Swiss Arms Classic Green semi-automatic rifle deciding to ban the weapons ownership and use in Canada, stating they suspected the guns could be converted to automatic weapons, which are illegal in Canada, why else but for political gain would the Conservative Party of Canada choose to ignore both the RCMP and the Supreme Court of Canada? If it is the job of the government to do what is best for all Canadians and insure that the laws it makes represents what is in the best interest of all Canadians please tell me how giving anyone who can pass a fire arms test and does not have a criminal record involving domestic violence the opportunity to arm themselves with a semi-automatic rifle that the police say is easily converted to an automatic rifle is in the best interest of the general public? Keeping in mind that children who bring guns to school and kill their bullies, have never been found guilty of a criminal offense before and neither have those disgruntled employees who walk into offices and start randomly shooting management and co-workers. All people who kill their spouses, or children with firearms have not all had criminal records in their past, or been convicted of domestic violence, so the chances of screening out all that would do harm with this weapon is as impossible a task as any other weapon. With the long gun registry scrapped by this government police will not know if this type of weapon is in a house that they are called to enter and so thanks to this government will be placed a risk once again so that the Conservative Party of Canada can score political points with its base.

The big reason for the government taking away the rights of Canadians guaranteed in the Canadian Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms pertaining to privacy and due legal process are that the government claims that we have been infiltrated by terrorists through our immigration system, who have now spawned what they are now calling home-grown terrorists. Most of those who have gone off and fought for what the government calls terrorist organisations abroad have never been found guilty of a criminal offense before, so how does Steven Blaney Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, know that he is not arming home-grown terrorist with semi-automatic weapons that are easily converted to automatic weapons that can be turned against our military personnel and our members of law enforcement?

In closing I would like to say these few words, “As far as gun owners being responsible for this new right that Steven Blaney Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, is attempting to give to them, I think that gun owners should be truly responsible for the privilege like Steven Blaney is suggesting. If Canadians are going to insist on their right to have guns then I think that they should be made to be responsible for everything that their guns are used for, whether in their hand, or in the hand of another unbeknownst to them, or without their expressed permission. Far too many illegal guns start off as legal guns that get stolen from homes and then are used to commit crimes; some guns are found by children and used to commit crimes, settle scores, or accidentally kill a friend or sibling; my thought is that the original owner of the firearm should be held accountable for allowing his or her firearm to fall into the wrong hands and be used in a crime and all such instances be deemed neglect on the part of the original gun owner, if the firearm was not reported stolen before the commission of a crime. I would like to see the new law hold the owners of unreported stolen firearms viewed as an accessory to the crime under the law and be subject to the same penalties as the actual perpetrator of the crime. I feel that they the original gun owner should be subject to the same jail time and penalties as the person using their weapon to commit the crime and that they should have to make restitution to the injured party, or their families. I wonder how many people would find it within their rights and demand that they be allowed to own a firearm if they were going to be held responsible for whatever crime that firearm was used in, if its being lost or stolen and was not reported to the police, or until they handed it over to the police before it got into the wrong hands and it that way were absolved of the responsibility for it and the consequences?”